Minor – Sale of Minors property – By father (Natural Guardian) – Without prior permission of Court – Voidable at instance of minor. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, section. 8 (2):

The present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – (original plaintiffs) had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and for possession of the suit property against the appellants and respondent No. 4 Bhagwan Lal (their father) with the averments that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 01-02-1974 from Suresh Chandra for a sum of Rs. 26,000. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 were tenants in the said house and a sum of Rs.1,000/- were deposited with Suresh Chandra as earnest money.

The rent deed has been executed by the eldest brother in favour of Suresh Chandra, which has been handed over to the plaintiffs by Suresh Chandra on the date of sale. By notice dated 06-02-1974, Suresh Chandra had informed defendant No.1 (i.e., tenants) by a registered notice that he has sold the house to the plaintiffs and therefore, the rent be paid to them and the deposit of Rs.1,000/- had also been transferred to them. The defendants admit them to be owners of the house and one months rent was sent by money order and therefore, based on attornment, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have become plaintiffs tenants. On 23-06-1974, the plaintiff No.1 became major and plaintiff No. 2 was still a minor. The suit property was required by the plaintiffs reasonably and bonafidely. However, the respondent No. 4, their father sold the suit house to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- on 15-06-1974 and has executed a sale deed and therefore, the defendants do not treat them as landlord which is incorrect. The defendant No. 4 had not obtained permission u/s. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956 (the Act) from the competent court and therefore, the sale deed was illegal and void and the plaintiffs are entitled for getting the same cancelled. The plaintiff was becoming a major eight days after the date of sale and therefore, the defendant No. 4 had no reason to sale the same to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3; the defendant No. 4 had no requirement as guardian of the money; as the defendants are plaintiffs tenants, they are entitled for possession and therefore, the suit be decreed and the sale deed dated 15-06-1974 be cancelled and possession of the suit house alongwith the due rent be decreed.

Once the property is owned by a minor, the provisions of section 8 of the Act are attracted. While s/s. (1) confers power on a natural guardian of a Hindu minor to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minors estate. The guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant, however, the said power is subject to the other provisions of section 8.

S/s. (2) provides for such conditions/restrictions, which inter alia mandates that a natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court mortgage, charge, transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor and s/s. (3) provides that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of s/s. (1) and (2) is voidable at the instance of minor or any person claiming under him. Even the grant of permission by the court is circumscribed by s/s. (4), wherein except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor such permission cannot be granted.

Though, s/s. (1) permits a natural guardian to do all acts necessary for the benefit of minor and for benefit of minors estate, but the same is subject to other provisions of section and s/s. (2) clearly provides that without previous permission of the court transfer by sale of immovable property shall not be made by the guardian and any sale in contravention of s/s. (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor. The said s/s. (2) does not admit of any exception, whereby for any condition the minors estate could be transferred by the natural guardian without previous permission of the court.

It is for the minor, on attaining majority, not to question the transfer which is in contravention of s/s. (2) of section 8, but if he decides to question the same, the same is voidable at his instance. In the present case, the Plaintiff No.1 has on attaining majority chosen to question the transfer made by the defendant No.4 Bhagwan Lal, his father in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (tenants) without seeking previous permission from the Court and therefore, the same was rightly declared void by the trial court.